Law, politics, pop culture, sports, and a touch of Oregon.

About this site

CommentsWhen you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.

No Legal AdviceAlthough I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Personal ViewThis blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.

In connection with this non-vote, the local TV newscasts, which I rarely watch, have been polling people. I saw one anti-death penalty person who said something incoherent about how the death penalty is just doing what the criminal did, so why not just lock them up for life?

There's some kind of non-sequitur where the comma resides . . . .

I mean, there are good arguments against the death penalty, but this just isn't one of them. To take the easiest example, suppose that we convict someone of taking a victim out of her home against her will and locking her up in his apartment. We would call that kidnapping and false imprisonment, and both are crimes. How would we punish this defendant? We would move him against his will to a prison and keep him locked up there for the duration of his sentence. We would be doing exactly what he did to his victim. Surely, there aren't many who think we can't punish the defendant in this way, are there?

The point is that the state can do things that individuals are forbidden from doing. Punishing criminals is one, collecting taxes is another. (If an individual were to do to you what the IRS does, we would call it extortion.)

That's not to say there aren't good arguments against the death penalty. In general, I'm persuaded that the irrevocability of execution combined with the possibility of error means, at the very least, the death penalty should be restricted to exceptionally clear cases (if such exist); if not an outright ban. It's true that even with imprisonment, there's something lost (time) that can't be given back, but at least we can release the person.

I'm also persuaded that the cost of seeking the death penalty, which is much greater than the cost of incarcerating someone for life, is in almost all, if not all, cases not worth the retributive satisfaction that we might feel. I'd say that the money is better spent on anything from tax refunds to shoring up elementary schools to aid to low income workers, etc.

But if we're going to have this debate, let's forget about the argument that we're just doing what the criminal himself did.

UPDATE (4/29): Christine Hurt disagrees with me and thinks that the argument I criticize can be made coherently on the ground that murder is different from all other crimes because it is irrevocable, and as a result, the punishment too:

The argument does not center around murder being merely a crime, so the
government should not commit a second, identical crime by imposing the
death penalty. . . . Instead, the crux of the
argument focuses on the profundity of ending human life as a rationale
for treating murderers more harshly as also being a rationale for
abolishing the death penalty.

I'm somewhat persuaded by Prof. Hurt's argument, but not entirely. In part, this is a more refined variation on the irrevocability of the death penalty argument, which I noted above as being a plausible abolitionist argument. It is also a variation of an argument on the symbolism of the punishment as reflecting society's values.

But I'm not entirely persuaded because, if execution is not a punishment option, then the maximum sentence that can be imposed is life imprisonment, and that punishment is not reserved solely for murderers. Under Iowa law, the list of "class A felonies," which carry life sentences, ICA s 902.1, includes (in addition to murder) sexual abuse causing serious injury, ICA s 709.2, kidnapping in the first degree, ICA s 710.2, and second convictions for delivering meth to minors, ICA s 124.401D. These are all serious crimes, and perhaps they merit life sentences, or perhaps they should merit lesser sentences so as to reserve life sentences for murderers. But Iowa, which again has no death penalty, does not treat murderers more harshly than all other criminals.

Comments

I think most of society, and your entry, discuss the death penalty in terms of either government mistake or whether or not it is morally right for the government to take another human life.

I have always framed the question in terms of whether or not the government should have the power to execute. In my opinion, it isn't about whether or not the government would be morally right in executing a person or whether or not certain criminals deserve such punishment. I think even if you answer that ending human life is morally ok and murderers are one category of people who deserve this treatment, it doesn't address the fundamental issue of whether or not the government should be given the power to do this, even when morally right and deserved.

It may be morally right for the government to stop virtual child pornography, and it may be that the virtual child pornographer deserves to be stopped, but our Supreme Court has refused to extend the regulatory and punitive powers of the government this far because one of the checks of government power, the freedom of speech, does not allow it. I think the reasoning is exactly analogous to the death penalty question. The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment clearly limits governmental punitive power. Ignoring this limitation and enacting the harshest punishment possible renders the limitation nugatory.

Obscuring the question behind notions of moral appropriateness skirts the fundamental and obvious answer, that government power should not extend so far.

Why? Do you want to attack the proposition because there's no legal authority to back it up? Feel free if you like. It's my opinion, and while I'm sure I could right out an argument based on citations to the Federalists, de Tocqueville, etc., I don't really think that's necessary in this forum.

So if you'd like to attack it on the grounds of lack of supporting authority, feel free. It's lame and a waste of your time, though.

There's a reasonable argument that a responsible government should or must have the death penalty for aggravated murder (the only kind of murder for which the USSC allows the DP). Aside from the (appealing) idea that someone who commits aggravated (first degree, worse than most) murder thereby forfeits his right to life, there is a significant general deterrence argument: the target group of to-be-deterred murderers are those deciding whether to commit premeditated, rational and deliberate killings. If they know that they may face the death penalty, at least some of them are likely to be deterred. The saving of those future, prospective victims' lives should be a significant factor when a government contemplates a possible death penalty statute. And don't buy the nonsense about how such deliberating possible killers don't care -- most do. That's why most fight the DP for years in court. Most strongly prefer three meals a day, a warm bed, a library, a gym, and LIFE to the void into which they would throw their victims.